Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community
Students of the Mary Phagan murder case, please download: 'Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2, by Jewish activist professor Leonard Dinnerstein. For this educational lesson about Southern history we are going to fact check every sentence, paragraph and page of Leonard Dinnerstein's 1968 scholarly article about the Leo Frank case.
Hand copy with pencil and paper Leonard Dinnerstein's entire article (including his references and citations). When finished hand copying Leonard Dinnerstein's article, next search for, and then acquire every reference and citation he uses to support his statements and claims about the Leo Frank case. For this lesson, we are going to fact check not only the statements and claims in his article that he provides references for, but also for things he claims that he doesn't provide references or citations for.
Questions for students of the Mary Phagan murder case to research and discuss:
Part 1, Different types of hoaxes: What is a Hoax? What is a racist hoax? What is an anti-Semitic hoax? What is an anti-gentile hoax? What is a hate crime hoax? After researching the subject, come up with definitions in your own words for the words racist, racism, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite, anti-Gentile, and anti-Gentilism. How can these words be put together with the term hoax and what do they mean.
Part 2, Academic dishonesty and academic misconduct: What are the definition of academic dishonesty and academic misconduct? Research the topic and come up with a definition in your own words. Did Leonard Dinnerstein create a racist, anti-Gentile and anti-Semitic hoax against White and Christian Southerners, about mobs of them shouting "hang the Jew" during the court proceedings of the Leo Frank trial? or is Leonard Dinnerstein's statement in these regards true? (see page 110 of Leonard Dinnerstein's article)
Part 3, How to create fallacious consensus in history: Did Leonard Dinnerstein promote this racist, anti-Gentile and anti-Semitic hoax as fact in academia and the popular culture of social history for 50 years? (check his PhD. dissertation 1966, and book, 'The Leo Frank Case' 1968) Did other Jewish activists, journalists and authors re-quote, repeat and promote Leonard Dinnerstein's racist, anti-Gentile and anti-Semitic Hoax about mobs of people shouting "hang the Jew"? (Do research in major search engines on keyword combinations, but before doing so study basic Boolean logic required for keyword search term narrowing.)
How hoaxes become part and parcel of history and historical consensus:
Time to document what you find, please write a paper about the results you found: We ask students of the Mary Phagan case to again read page 110 of the above article for claims about mobs of people shouting "hang the Jew" during the Leo Frank trial for the purpose of producing a research paper about the subject.
Search the timeline of history in the past before 1966 and 1968, and after these two said dates for other mentioning of his infamous claim.
Is there any reliable and verifiable evidence from the primary sources for Dinnerstein's "hang the Jew" claim? You were asked to research on google, yahoo and bing for the keyword "hang the Jew", and list all the articles, authors and web site addresses that promote Leonard Dinnerstein's racist and anti-Semitic hoax. Do you see how this ugly racist, anti-Gentile and anti-Semitic Hoax has spread like wildfire across the Internet? Share the results you found with other students.
Starting on page 110 is the example of Leonard Dinnerstein creating an un-sourced fabrication (lie) based on academic dishonesty:
"Beyond the main testimony, the jurors had little more on which to base their decision than hearsay, rumors, and unsubstantiated accusations. Yet most members of the public were thoroughly convinced of the defendant's guilt and made their voices heard, The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' "
Primary Source Solutions: Review the local Atlanta newspapers during July / August of 1913 (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal and Atlanta Georgian) and Leo Frank's appeals to the Georgia and United States Supreme Court (1,800 page record), is there any evidence of Leonard Dinnerstein's racist, anti-Gentile and anti-Semitic hoax about people screaming "hang the Jew" at the trial jury? Why do you think so many people are willing to falsify history on behalf of a Jewish pedophile? Does race and religion have anything to do with the perpetuation of historical lies? Can you find other authors who wrote about the Leo Frank case who used false, fabricated or manipulated evidence to argue for the position Leo Frank was innocent? (Purchase a copy of the books about the Leo Frank case written by Elaine Marie Alphin, 2010; Steve Oney, 2003; Robert Seitz Frey, 1988; Matthew Bernstein, 2009; Albert S. Lindemann, 1991; David Mamet, 1997; Jeffrey Melnick, 2000; Harry Golden, 1965; Charles and Louise Samuels, 1956)
Review the bibliography of this educational lesson to check some of the other books and articles written about the Leo Frank Case.
Mary Phagan Bitemark Claim:
Real claim or another hoax created about the Leo Frank case?
Lets examine the Mary Phagan bitemark origin: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen, 1964, p 237-8
examine each sentence and paragraph of this alleged claim. What are some of the problems with these assertions? Does the whole thing sound like a fabrication and hoax based on your research?
Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen's discovery of photographic evidence, pages 237 and 238:
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....
Source: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case):
Scholarly debunking of the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax
In reality, X-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913, and it was never possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 or today (ask any X-ray technician). Vehicles had virtually no safety features to speak of in 1922, so the chances of someone walking away “without a scratch” from a head-on collision is a bald-faced lie. Was Leo Frank’s appeals attorney named “Harry Alexander” (false) or Henry Alexander (correct)? Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to his murder trial in 1913. He was tried and sentenced to death by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913. The hanging took place nearly two years later on August 17, 1915. Leo Frank went on trial in Atlanta, not 170 miles away in Milledgeville where the hoaxer suggests the trial was scheduled.
Oddly enough, even though the 'Mary Phagan bitemark hoax' has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholars and forensic scientists, 21st century efforts by primarily Jewish activists and lesser extent Gentile liberals, to exonerate Leo Frank with fabricated evidence in the popular culture, continue citing the disingenuous rumors created by Pierre van Paassen as evidence of Leo Frank's innocence.
Find scientific and historical sources to debunk the assertions of Pierre van Paassen.
Question: Did Leonard Dinnerstein promulgate the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax in his writings like his Ph.D. dissertation (1966) and his book, 'The Leo Frank Case' (1968)?
Search for the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax in Leonard Dinnerstein's PhD Dissertation, various editions of his book 'The Leo Frank Case' and articles he wrote about the Murder of Mary Phagan (see references / bibliography). Please write down the locations of where you find mentioning of it, including the page, paragraph and sentence.
Question: Is Professor Leonard Dinnerstein guilty of academic dishonesty? We ask you to read each and every item below that was written about the Leo Frank case by Leonard Dinnerstein and then meticulously fact check every sentence of his writings by using the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Archive, and local Atlanta daily newspapers from April to August of 1913 (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian and Atlanta Journal) as references:
What did you discover? What other assertions has Leonard Dinnerstein made that turned out to be false? Are these simple mistakes or is there a pattern?
About Leonard Dinnerstein
Leonard Dinnerstein (b. May 5, 1934) completed his PhD thesis about the Leo Max Frank Case in 1966 for the Political Science Department of Columbia University. The central thesis of all his works on the case promulgates that Antisemitism was ultimately responsible for an innocent White Jewish man, Leo Frank, getting convicted for the murder of Mary Phagan in 1913. Dinnerstein's dissertation became the species for his book, "The Leo Frank Case" (Columbia University Press, first edition 1968; revised edition 1987).
We ask you students of the Mary Phagan murder case to fact check these items listed below using the primary sources of the Leo Frank case to learn how facts are fabricated, manipulated and omitted. Please write a research paper about this author and subject.
References and Bibliography:
Article: Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity
PhD Dissertation: The Leo Frank Case (1966) by Leonard Dinnerstein: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation
Book: The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein (published 1968, revised edition 1987): http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein
Book origin of the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax: To Number Our Days (1964) by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen
Academic Dishonesty at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty
Fabrication (Lie) at Wikipedia (linked from Academic Dishonesty) "A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Fabrication
Primary and Veritably Reliable Secondary Sources about Frank-Phagan case:
0. The Leo Frank Case Inside Story of Georgia's Greatest Murder Mystery 1913
- The first neutral book written about the murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank.
1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean
(Available on www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial and appeals of Leo Frank, including his posthumous pardon. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number of Jewish authored modern and contemporary books, disingenuously transforming the Leo Frank case into a neurotic, anti-Gentile morality tale.
2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson
tends to be biased in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team. This case commentary review provides an *abridged* version of the Brief of Evidence, leaving out some of the important testimony and evidence when it republishes parts of the trial testimony. Be sure to read the abridged closing arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper and Hugh Manson Dorsey. For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony, read the 1913 Leo Frank Case Brief of Evidence.
3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank
. Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial on August 22, 23, and 25, 1913. Only 18 libraries in the United States have copies of these statements in book format. This is an excellent book and required reading for students of the Leo Frank case to see how Hugh Dorsey, in sales vernacular, 'closed' the panel of 13 men (the trial jury of 12 men plus Judge Leonard Strickland Roan).
4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence.
Only three original copies from 1913 and 1914 exist at the Georgia State Archive.
Three Major Atlanta Dailies: The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst's Tabloid Yellow Journalism). The most relevant issues center around April 28th to August 27th 1913.
5. Atlanta Constitution Newspaper: The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trial, Appeals, Prison Shanking and Lynching reported about the Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Daily Newspaper from 1913 to 1915. http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915
6. Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from late April though August, 1913. http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913
7. Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to articles about the Leo Frank Case: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913
Leo Frank confirms he might have been in the bathroom at the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty (12:05 pm to 12:10 pm): See the Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview
U.S. Senator Tom Watson
8. Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Newspaper (1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917) and Watson's Magazine (1915). Tom Watson's best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in August and September 1915. Watson's five major magazine works written serially on the Frank-Phagan affair, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with the superb reasoning of a seasoned criminal attorney. These five 1915 articles published over numerous months are absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Originals of these magazines are extremely difficult to find.
8.1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case
. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
8.2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source: www.Archive.org
Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Weekly Newspaper
9. The archive of Tom E. Watson Digital Papers, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, contains the full collection of Jeffersonian Newspapers: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson
Modern Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that have been censored for more than 100 years. For a nearly complete selection of: Tom Watson's Jeffersonian newspaper articles specifically related to the Murder of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank Case
Tom Watson Brown, Grandson of Thomas Edward Watson
10. Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank
, By Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982.
Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Archive:
11. Leo Frank Trial and Appeals Georgia Supreme Court File
(1,800 pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914